logo Sign In

MeBeJedi

User Group
Members
Join date
10-Mar-2003
Last activity
10-Feb-2025
Posts
4,879

Post History

Post
#150235
Topic
I think the O-OT WAS restored
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/150235/action/topic#150235
Time
"by the way YCM stands for Yellow, Cyan and Magenta a special dye tranfer that yield the best film prints for restoration."

More specifically:

DYE TRANSFER

A NEW OPTIMISM

Mention “dye transfer” to most anyone in the publishing industry and they’ll tell you it’s obsolete. Ask commercial printers about it and they’ll declare it passé. Raise the subject with a group of fine-art photographers and printers—even Hollywood filmmakers—and you’re likely to get a different opinion.

At least that was the conclusion at an autumn weekend retreat in Vermont hosted by fine art photographer Luke Powell. Over 30 past and present dye printers and photographers from all over North America, Germany and Australia took Powell up on his invitation. A typical conversation-starter was, “Where were you when you heard…?” The question concerned Kodak’s abrupt decision in 1993 to pull the plug on the manufacture of dye transfer products, leaving some 500 photographers and technicians without a source of the materials they depended on for their livelihood.

That decision is still keenly felt among practitioners. The intensity of their response is remarkable, even more so considering the investment dye transfer requires—and not just in terms of money. The process, also known as dye imbibition, starts by creating tricolor separation negatives from a transparency. Exposing each negative onto a specially-coated film creates three bas-relief images called matrices, the degree of relief proportional to the exposure they receive. The matrices are soaked in complementary acidic dye baths and rolled in register onto special photographic paper secured to a pin-register board. The pH difference between the dye and the paper aids the transfer of the dye. It’s a painstaking process that takes years to master.

So why, in this age of instant gratification, would anyone cling to this technology? For one thing, it gives enormous control over color density and balance. And it yields an archival print of spectacular richness and longevity. Bob Pace, a respected authority on color print processes for two generations of photography professionals, is a fervent believer: “I have made over 25,000 dye transfer prints and nothing I have seen in all this time has shaken my feelings about this process.” And Kodak’s dye transfer guru Frank McLaughlin, who taught the process over the phone to generations of image-makers until his retirement in 1986, states simply, “The dye transfer product is the most manageable, most color-pure, most true-to-life photographic product ever invented.

----------

Dye transfer printers are elated at recent indications that Technicolor—the cinematic version of dye transfer—is returning to the big screen. The re-release of Giant in 1996, the first American-printed Technicolor feature film in 21 years, has heightened interest in its revival within the film industry.

Technicolor is also called IB printing (for “imbibition”, after the photographic term “dye imbibition”). Technicolor, Inc., ended IB printing in the U.S. in 1974. Technicolor London closed its operation in 1977, but not until they’d made five IB prints of Star Wars for George Lucas.

The restoration of the Star Wars trilogy brought IB printing back to the forefront. According to Leon Briggs, who worked with Lucasfilm on the restoration for over two years, the original negatives had faded only 5 - 15%, well within normal range. But he explained that George Lucas wanted the original color in the restored version. Lucasfilms technicians were able to accomplish this goal for Star Wars, but only because they had an IB print to use for color reference.


Yes......I am a geek.

(Although I find the "color reference" to be a bit laughable, seeing as how much it helped in the final colors of the official DVD.)
Post
#150073
Topic
Original Trilogy.com in the Press
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/150073/action/topic#150073
Time
I don't doubt that - but notice how the name is changed.

Besides, there's all sorts of ways to skirt laws and regulations, but just because you can buy it in a store doesn't prove it is legal. Hell, a person may unknowingly buy it because they think it is a "video signal cleaners", and never be aware that it removes the macrovision signal.

I remember when Radio Shack was being sued by some guy who was spied upon by someone who had bought or built some device with parts from Radio Shack (I don't recall details - it was a long time ago.) Radio Shack eventually won, showing that they legally sold many devices that could easily be used for illegal activities as well. This is the same reasoning that the peer networks have been using: They admit that there is illegal sharing of copyrighted material, but that is not the sole use of the peer networks, thus they should be allowed to exist. It's kinda like saying cars and guns should be illegal, because they are used in bank robberies. While this is true, these are not the intended or sole use or cars or guns, and getting rid of them would either be throwing the baby out with the bath water (cars), or really wouldn't diminish the number of bank robberies (most bank robberies are accomplished with notes and the threat of violence.)

Not to mention the fact that many foreign DVD players disable macrovision, or at least allow it to be done after-market, but I can assure you: when it was made know that the earlier, very expensive Sony players did this many moons ago, that was a BIG deal. It's just that, at this point, it's a little too widespread for the studios to effectively deal with. That's why they went so vigorously after the kid who broke the CSS protection code. He wanted to post it on the Internet as "free speech", but the studios said it went directly against the DCMA. In the end, it was already so widespread across the internet that the damage was done, and the courts decided to drop it.
Post
#150072
Topic
BEAUTIFUL WOMEN NEW RULES IN FIRST POST (NSFW) UPDATED RULES
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/150072/action/topic#150072
Time
"Way to over do it tabby."

Bite your tongue!

This is a great find to rejuvenate this thread.

"Why do I never see women walking down the street in a top like this? Damn!"

Uhm, maybe because they see you coming and cross the street?

Here's more Chyler Leigh (Those of you with 56K - suck it up and invest in Broadband. :cool

http://www.actressgallery.com/chylerleigh/pictures/004.jpg

http://www.actressgallery.com/chylerleigh/pictures/002.jpg

And here's Amanda Righetti

http://www.gceleb.com/A/amanda_righetti/amanda_righetti_8.jpg
Post
#150054
Topic
Original Trilogy.com in the Press
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/150054/action/topic#150054
Time
"Best Buy carries them because there isn't a controversy about VHS to VHS or DVD to VHS conversions."

But it's still illegal by the DMCA. That's the only point I was making. I don't see Best Buy trying to be a legal maverick.

"Anyway, for LFL to sue you, they would first have to know who you are, and where you live. Somehow, I seriously doubt anyone here would volunteer that info."

I'm not going to name names, but someone I know involved in one of these projects was just recently contacted by a news organization, and he has no idea how they got his information. You'd be surprised how much of your information can be had without you having to volunteer it.
Post
#150039
Topic
Original Trilogy.com in the Press
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/150039/action/topic#150039
Time
"I'm pretty sure it doesn't--because in order to make a back-up copy of your DVD, you have to break the copyright protection."

Actually, it does, in so many words - which is why the law causes so many problems. The DMCA says you cannot remove or circumvent copy protection.

By banning all acts of circumvention, and all technologies and tools that can be used for circumvention, section 1201 grants to copyright owners the power to unilaterally eliminate the public’s fair use rights. Already, the music industry has begun deploying "copy-protected CDs" that promise to curtail consumers’ ability to make legitimate, personal copies of music they have purchased.Section 1201 Jeopardizes Fair Use.


Here's another good site.

The studios used this to go after DVDXCopy, which would remove the protection, make a copy, and then put the protection on the copy. Unfortunately, the fact that it broke the encryption in the first place was enough gave the studios enough legal standing to take the company down.

Obviously, this doesn't apply to laserdiscs, because they are incompatible with macrovision, but I was surprised to see Best Buy carry macrovision-breaker boxes, which would obviously be used to make VHS-to-VHS or DVD-to-VHS copies.